Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Because there aren't 1,000,000 legitimate "gun brandishing" defenses. There are 1,000,000 angry coots waving guns at minor trespassers, plus some small number---probably unknowable among the NRA disinformation---of legitimate harm-prevention.

Not to mention that even some of the "legitimate harm prevention" incidents would have been better avoided altogether. Some of them follow the pattern of 1) Person observes suspicious behavior. 2) Person confronts the person who is the object of their suspicion. 3) Suspected person becomes violent or angry. 4) Original person uses gun in self defense.

Had the original person not had a gun, he wouldn't have confronted the "suspicious" character in the first place. Perhaps they would have just kept an eye on them, or if they really thought something was wrong, dialed 911.

Your observations of the 1,000,000 number is also spot on, and I must admit I hadn't thought about that. Here I am, gunless, and I cannot think of the last time I actually felt threatened by anyone where I needed any form of self defense, much less a situation where brandishing a gun would have been appropriate. (There was one incident in 1984, but that incident ended with no injuries to anyone, and I'm not sure that would have been the case if I,or any of the others involved, would have used a gun for self defense.)

Needless to say, there are times when having a gun saved an innocent person's life or property, but those incidents must be much rarer than NRA claims.

In America one has the right to be secure in their environment, the police have no responsibilities to protect an individual. ..........

That seems very odd. The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 sets out police duties and Section 17

....to guard, patrol and watch so as - (i) to prevent the commission of offences, (ii) to preserve order, and (iii) to protect life and property....

That does not mean the police are required to protect a person as a just in case, unless there is information to suggest the person is at risk, in which case there are numerous options for the police from threat to life warnings, witness protection, extra attention, crime prevention surveys, to panic alarms and special phones which can be installed.

I am quite sure all of the above are available in the USA as well, yet you say the police have no responsibilities to protecting the individual

It's funny/sad that right-wingers take a 5-4 SCOTUS decisions like Heller to be Inviolable American Truths ... and turn around (I don't know about you, but it's common general) and in the same breath announce that Roe v. Wade (7-2) is an abomination to be overturned ASAP and ignored by states in the meantime. Huh.

To play Devil's advocate: Perhaps Heller is to do with something explicitly mentioned in the US constitution, while Roe was seen as an unintended use of the 14th amendment (i'm not sure about the specifics of that case).

That said, interestingly enough, they're polar opposites on the matter. Pro-lifers tend to be pro gun rights, while pro-choice tend to be pro gun control.

Actually states which have enacted CCW have had inconvenient drops in crime.

Evidence?

Quote:

Speaking of which you seem to support the idea that one has a right to criminal activity.

That seems and is very wrong.

Quote:

And no, the overall problem is not greater than the second amendment, and I reject both your assignment of blame and your accusation of murder.

The big issue is American gun culture as it developed from Independence and that Second Amendment. The UK, Australia, Canada and NZ, similar countries to the USA have got gun cultures that do not kill their own citizens to anything like the same extent than the USA does. I am quite sure the closer ties between the Commonwealth countries is why those four have similar gun cultures.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

Yeah, so there's that....

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

You're wrong, but this doesn't surprise me.

There are other studies, such as Harvard School of Public Health and Hemenway, Denton & Fabricius, Lambert that show reports of guns protecting from crime and defensive gun use are rare and exaggerated. They all looked at actual reports of DGUs and found a number were criminal acts in themselves as people used a gun to threaten another and then claimed self defence.

Lambert studied Dade County Florida over five years and the following incidents were recorded as DGUs

"The Dade police recorded the following incidents involving the
defensive use of licensed carry firearms: two robbery cases in
which the permit-holder produced a firearm and the robbers fled,
two cases involving permit-holders who unsuccessfully attempted
to stop and apprehend robbers (no one was hurt), one robbery
victim whose gun was taken away by the robber, a victim who
shot an attacking pit bull; two captures of burglars, three scaring
off of burglars, one thwarted rape, and a bail bondsman firing
two shots at a fleeing bond-jumper who was wanted for armed
robbery.
There were only 12 incidents where a criminal encountered an armed
permit holder."

So there are huge doubts over the accuracy and flaws in the surveys quoted, such as where the supposed 498,000 intruders scared off by the gun or just the fact that they had been disturbed?

To play Devil's advocate: Perhaps Heller is to do with something explicitly mentioned in the US constitution, while Roe was seen as an unintended use of the 14th amendment (i'm not sure about the specifics of that case).

Well, there are 4 Supreme Court justices (and innumerable non-NRA-funded constitutional lawyers) who do not think the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership at all. Instead, it protects the right of the states to keep armories during peacetime, rather than mobilizing/demobilizing only when wars are declared by Congress.

That seems very odd. The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 sets out police duties and Section 17

....to guard, patrol and watch so as - (i) to prevent the commission of offences, (ii) to preserve order, and (iii) to protect life and property....

That does not mean the police are required to protect a person as a just in case, unless there is information to suggest the person is at risk, in which case there are numerous options for the police from threat to life warnings, witness protection, extra attention, crime prevention surveys, to panic alarms and special phones which can be installed.

I am quite sure all of the above are available in the USA as well, yet you say the police have no responsibilities to protecting the individual

"By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]"

The case is pretty clear, the police are not responsible for protecting a private citizen and defending oneself with a gun was, at that time, quite illegal under D.C. laws.

Too bad I didn't use citation #92, so go back and read again, this time for comprehension. And the study you linked, is not the one I was even remotely talking about. Not quite sure why you linked that one. Is there some part of it you want me to look at? Page number?

Originally Posted by ben m

Your "million defensive gun uses" is basically because the survey picks up (a) angry coots for whom "a kid cut across my driveway and I yelled at him" counts as a home invasion, and (b) people who get into drunken arguments and chase their opponent off with a gun.

Think about your "million per year" number. If true, that's a million *attempts* to harm people who happen to have guns? Really? Then surely, since 30% of homes (and a tinier fraction of people out on the town) are armed, there would be at least 2,000,000 additional attempts to harm people who don't. Per year. Why aren't non-gun-owning households suffering murder, rape, kidnapping, etc. at a rate of 2,000,000 per year, as implied by the 1,000,000 per year attempts you say the gunners are chasing off?

Because there aren't 1,000,000 legitimate "gun brandishing" defenses. There are 1,000,000 angry coots waving guns at minor trespassers, plus some small number---probably unknowable among the NRA disinformation---of legitimate harm-prevention.

Anyway, I invite America's old coots to continue chasing off trespassers with breech-loading shotguns and/or hunting rifles, as their ancestors did before them.

You've said a lot, but a lot of nothing. Not sure where you've got all this supposed "data" from, perhaps you'll link it?

No **** eh? Thanks for helping me with that....: If YOU hadn't noticed, you mentioned a solution, which I explained would NEVER make it past the USSC.

Originally Posted by ben m

It's possible that a carefully-set-up, very strict, handgun licensing/insurance law could pass the existing Heller test.

Not likely, but it's certainly possible.

Originally Posted by ben m

It's possible that a new Court could simply overturn Heller--

Yep, and people have been saying the same thing about Roe V Wade for years....

Originally Posted by ben m

-many law scholars think the jurisprudence on that one was terrible.

Awesome. Do you have a point?

Originally Posted by ben m

Finally, the framers of the constitution gave us a mechanism for changing it, which has happened 17 times, so it's possible to get rid of, or clarify the militia clause of, the actual 2nd Amendment.

If only I had known that.... 17 times? Wow. That's a LOT!

Originally Posted by ben m

So let's talk about that.

Sure. Let's talk about it.

No. I don't support any alteration of the 2nd Amendment. But, you're welcome to try. You'll need a 2/3rds vote from the sates.... Snowballs chance in hell of that happening.

Originally Posted by ben m

It's funny/sad that right-wingers take a 5-4 SCOTUS decisions like Heller to be Inviolable American Truths ...

No, but they're recent USSC decisions that make your "ban" all that more difficult. These are HUGE decisions, that will be cited for decades to come.

Originally Posted by ben m

and turn around (I don't know about you, but it's common general) and in the same breath announce that Roe v. Wade (7-2) is an abomination to be overturned ASAP and ignored by states in the meantime. Huh.

I won't comment on that, because it's wildly off topic, and not something I want to discuss. I may be willing to discuss it in another thread, but not likely.

Not to mention that even some of the "legitimate harm prevention" incidents would have been better avoided altogether. Some of them follow the pattern of 1) Person observes suspicious behavior. 2) Person confronts the person who is the object of their suspicion. 3) Suspected person becomes violent or angry. 4) Original person uses gun in self defense.

Had the original person not had a gun, he wouldn't have confronted the "suspicious" character in the first place. Perhaps they would have just kept an eye on them, or if they really thought something was wrong, dialed 911.

Your observations of the 1,000,000 number is also spot on, and I must admit I hadn't thought about that. Here I am, gunless, and I cannot think of the last time I actually felt threatened by anyone where I needed any form of self defense, much less a situation where brandishing a gun would have been appropriate. (There was one incident in 1984, but that incident ended with no injuries to anyone, and I'm not sure that would have been the case if I,or any of the others involved, would have used a gun for self defense.)

Needless to say, there are times when having a gun saved an innocent person's life or property, but those incidents must be much rarer than NRA claims.

Ok, so as Ben said, even IF (I'm still skeptical of his claims....) 25% of them are not legit SD situations, that still leaves 750,000.

And who said anything about the NRA making that claim? They didn't. Unless you can show otherwise. Ben didn't.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I've hilighted a portion for you.

In, 1790, "keep arms" seems to have referred to militia armories. "bear arms" meant going to war. The amendment was originally about a minor detail how militias are kept in readiness for national defense, written at a time when such militias were national defense because there was not a national standing army.

It had nothing to do with crime, self-defense, policing, target shooting, hunting, or SWAT-team fantasy playacting, nor armed insurrection (the Constitution has provided for peaceful insurrections called "elections" instead) which is what the modern gun fetishists have convinced themselves that it's for.

"By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]"

The case is pretty clear, the police are not responsible for protecting a private citizen and defending oneself with a gun was, at that time, quite illegal under D.C. laws.

That is outrageous! So much appears to rest on that ridiculous case. It beggars belief that the police can muck up and walk away like that. Surly there have been other cases where the police have been sued or complained about and paid out for negligence. Don't they show the police do have a duty of care?

In, 1790, "keep arms" seems to have referred to militia armories. "bear arms" meant going to war. The amendment was originally about a minor detail how militias are kept in readiness for national defense, written at a time when such militias were national defense because there was not a national standing army.

It had nothing to do with crime, self-defense, policing, target shooting, hunting, or SWAT-team fantasy playacting, nor armed insurrection (the Constitution has provided for peaceful insurrections called "elections" instead) which is what the modern gun fetishists have convinced themselves that it's for.

Anyway: if it *is* an individual carrying right? Repeal the damn thing. It's a relic and an abomination and it's killing 30,000 people every damn year.

Fact is that amendment has been argued over and ruled over such that USA has its present situation of such a high death rate from guns. It is the pro gun lobby are largely responsible for the legal situation as it is and the restrictions, or lack of them on guns. So they are responsible for all the criminals and nuts who have far too many of the estimated 270 million guns in the USA.

They do not see that tighter and better organised restrictions have meant it is harder for criminals and nuts to get hold of guns in the UK, Australia, Canada and NZ and many other Western Countries.

They do not want to see that in the name of their freedom to bear arms many have lost their life and freedom to be safe from firearms.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Et cetera.

In short, the dissent affirms an individual right for limited purposes. Those purposes do not include hunting or self-defense.

The four dissenting justices were in the minority.

Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent, which was joined by three other justices, in which Justice Breyer said the rights protected by the second amendment aren't absolute anyway.

The Heller decision applied only to the District of Columbia. McDonald v. Chicago effectively extended that decision to the states.

From Justice Stevens's dissent in that case:

Quote:

....The question we should be answering in this case is whether the Constitution "guarantees individuals a fundamental right," enforceable against the states, "to possess a functional, personal firearm, including a handgun, within the home."

....The fact that the right to keep and bear arms appears in the Constitution should not obscure the novelty of the Court’s decision to enforce that right against the States. By its terms, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States; read properly, it does not even apply to individuals outside of the militia context.

In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view.

Well, there are 4 Supreme Court justices (and innumerable non-NRA-funded constitutional lawyers) who do not think the 2nd amendment protects individual gun ownership at all. Instead, it protects the right of the states to keep armories during peacetime, rather than mobilizing/demobilizing only when wars are declared by Congress.

Other than your assertion, could we have some evidence from observers concurrent with the writing of the BoR that support your version of events?

In our local school districts, all of the high schools have cops present. Helps with drug busts as well as general security.

Originally Posted by tsig

Cars =/= guns.

Cars are used to transport people or equipment, guns are used toll tpeople.

Glad I could straighten out your confusion.
.

And for all their innocent purpose, slay tens of thousands each year in our country. You have not supported your position with that argument.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

It's best to always treat a gun as it were loaded and as if it could go off by itself at any moment. Therefore never, ever point it at anything you would regret putting a hole though.

Yep.

Two points:

1. If CT's citizens and law makers choose to reapply the assault weapons ban, that expired a few years ago, that is up to the people of CTZ to do.

2. If someon murders someone in Bulgaria, is it a Danish tragedy?
No.

3. For our "outside the US" friends, please remember that our nation is as big as most of your continent. You aren't dealing with Denmark here.

4. I do not wish to curtail freedom of the press. I do not wish to curtail equal protection under the law. I do not wish to curtail the right to bear arms. I do not like the attacks on any of our basic freedoms, see Bill of Rights, particularly as a knee jerk response to a tragedy. See Patriot Act and 9-11 as a classic example.

5. The freak who did this was known to have massive behavioral problems. From what I have read, were his mother alive today, she could be justifiably charged with criminal negligence. (Then again, he stole the guns and shot her, so she's safe from that. )

6. It has been noted that this freak tried to purchase firearms in a state where purchase rules are ALREADY STRINGENT. He failed to purchase them thanks to people apparently applying rules and judgment. (His mother, maybe not so much ...)

7. Whenever I hear "never happen again" I gag.

School security has been an issue since I was in high school, and there were some serious violent events that got school evacuated and cops called out there. Mid 70's.

The suggestions that teachers be armed has a lot of holes in it.

There are a lot of teachers who do not choose to own arms, their own free choice. I do not want any teacher to be pressured or forced to arm. I would hope a given school district considering the approach from the above link would be sensitive to that issue.

My prediction? Assault weapons ban will probably get a re look, and may be reinstated in some states. Let the voters decide in each state.

No Federal action needed.

__________________Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission."Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

In, 1790, "keep arms" seems to have referred to militia armories. "bear arms" meant going to war. The amendment was originally about a minor detail how militias are kept in readiness for national defense, written at a time when such militias were national defense because there was not a national standing army.

It had nothing to do with crime, self-defense, policing, target shooting, hunting, or SWAT-team fantasy playacting, nor armed insurrection (the Constitution has provided for peaceful insurrections called "elections" instead) which is what the modern gun fetishists have convinced themselves that it's for.

Anyway: if it *is* an individual carrying right? Repeal the damn thing. It's a relic and an abomination and it's killing 30,000 people every damn year.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a scholar on the issue, but I have read several documents of the era.

Like many things about what the constitution "really" meant, the founders themselves didn't know. They weren't sure about the concept of judicial review and how far it could go, or how the constitution would actually work. The people who supported the Bill of Rights and the inclusion of the 2nd ammendment within that didn't agree.

I have read documents that discussed the individual's right to own weapons, including the need for armed insurrections.

On the other hand, the "mainstream" thought at the time seems to be exactly what you said it should be. The right to keep and bear arms was very specifically a right for local militias, under the power of state and local governments, to organize and to maintain armories as they saw fit. Some people at the time thought that was enough. Others thought it was important to emphasize the individual's right to maintain weapons in their own homes.

One thing that was consistent in every single document that I read was the meaning of "bear arms". It has nothing to do with owning weapons. It has nothing to do with carrying weapons. That phrase has a specific meaning, and it means to serve in an army.

Other than your assertion, could we have some evidence from observers concurrent with the writing of the BoR that support your version of events?

I linked to a 1995 New York Review of Books article that discusses exactly that evidence, in depth, with references. I suggest you read it. For example, here is James Madison's first draft of the amendment:

Quote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Which shows, pretty clearly I think, that Madison is trying to write a law governing militias. "The people should maintain armories, because standing militias are important, but Quakers (whose pacifist religion forbids bearing arms) shall not be compelled to join them." The Quaker exemption clause makes it very clear that "bear arms" refers to going to war---the Quakers had no religious resistance to hunting or target-shooting or SWAT-team playacting---but when this clause was deleted it gave the NRA an opening to re-parse the one remaining usage.

Read the article, it's great. It goes into detail on the word "keep", and its longstanding English usage with a simple (and relevant) militia-armory related meaning. It tells the funny story of a lone nutcase, who was throwing out hastily-written "amendments" in an attempt to disrupt Pennsylvania's ratification meetings, but whose mention of a "right to hunt" got NRA-processed and cited as an important "minority"'s view of the 2nd amendment.

Sure, I understand this is a topic for argument. I understand that there's an easy modern-language reading, which most readers think sounds correct, by which there is an individual right. However, I also understand that the founders meant for the constitution to change. It's been altered and amended 17 times already, because times change. Our understanding of slavery changed, so we fixed the Constitution. Our understanding of womens' rights changed, so we fixed the Constitution.

Our understanding of guns, militias, and defense has changed. A "well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary for the security of a free state", because modern wars are fought with missiles and drones and warplanes (driven by trained professionals)---not with conscripts carrying their own fowling pieces. That whole clause is a relic. Let's repeal it, or amend it, or reread it in some restricted way that saves some fraction of the 30,000 lives that it's demanding in sacrifice.

I linked to a 1995 New York Review of Books article that discusses exactly that evidence, in depth, with references. I suggest you read it. For example, here is James Madison's first draft of the amendment:

Which shows, pretty clearly I think, that Madison is trying to write a law governing militias. "The people should maintain armories, because standing militias are important, but Quakers (whose pacifist religion forbids bearing arms) shall not be compelled to join them." The Quaker exemption clause makes it very clear that "bear arms" refers to going to war---the Quakers had no religious resistance to hunting or target-shooting or SWAT-team playacting---but when this clause was deleted it gave the NRA an opening to re-parse the one remaining usage.

Read the article, it's great. It goes into detail on the word "keep", and its longstanding English usage with a simple (and relevant) militia-armory related meaning. It tells the funny story of a lone nutcase, who was throwing out hastily-written "amendments" in an attempt to disrupt Pennsylvania's ratification meetings, but whose mention of a "right to hunt" got NRA-processed and cited as an important "minority"'s view of the 2nd amendment.

Sure, I understand this is a topic for argument. I understand that there's an easy modern-language reading, which most readers think sounds correct, by which there is an individual right. However, I also understand that the founders meant for the constitution to change. It's been altered and amended 17 times already, because times change. Our understanding of slavery changed, so we fixed the Constitution. Our understanding of womens' rights changed, so we fixed the Constitution.

Our understanding of guns, militias, and defense has changed. A "well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary for the security of a free state", because modern wars are fought with missiles and drones and warplanes (driven by trained professionals)---not with conscripts carrying their own fowling pieces. That whole clause is a relic. Let's repeal it, or amend it, or reread it in some restricted way that saves some fraction of the 30,000 lives that it's demanding in sacrifice.

I reject your reading of Madison's quote in it's entirety.

The intent of the writers of both the DoI and the BoR is clear, and the use of the phrase "the people" in the Second is consistent with their use of the same phrase throughout the documents.

The amendment was not intended to allow states to raise militias, and the Republic to have the right to field armies, the amendment was intended to recognize the intrinisic right to self defense, and the concurrent right to resist tyranny, from whatever source.

In, 1790, "keep arms" seems to have referred to militia armories. "bear arms" meant going to war. The amendment was originally about a minor detail how militias are kept in readiness for national defense, written at a time when such militias were national defense because there was not a national standing army.

It had nothing to do with crime, self-defense, policing, target shooting, hunting, or SWAT-team fantasy playacting, nor armed insurrection (the Constitution has provided for peaceful insurrections called "elections" instead) which is what the modern gun fetishists have convinced themselves that it's for.

I wouldn't exactly call myself a scholar on the issue, but I have read several documents of the era.

Like many things about what the constitution "really" meant, the founders themselves didn't know. They weren't sure about the concept of judicial review and how far it could go, or how the constitution would actually work. The people who supported the Bill of Rights and the inclusion of the 2nd ammendment within that didn't agree.

I have read documents that discussed the individual's right to own weapons, including the need for armed insurrections.

On the other hand, the "mainstream" thought at the time seems to be exactly what you said it should be. The right to keep and bear arms was very specifically a right for local militias, under the power of state and local governments, to organize and to maintain armories as they saw fit. Some people at the time thought that was enough. Others thought it was important to emphasize the individual's right to maintain weapons in their own homes.

One thing that was consistent in every single document that I read was the meaning of "bear arms". It has nothing to do with owning weapons. It has nothing to do with carrying weapons. That phrase has a specific meaning, and it means to serve in an army.

If I'm reading you correctly, you believe the second amendment is in reference to a right to serve in an army?

The writers of individual state constitutions must have missed that memo.

"Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Maine: 0 Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

In our local school districts, all of the high schools have cops present. Helps with drug busts as well as general security.

And for all their innocent purpose, slay tens of thousands each year in our country. You have not supported your position with that argument.

Yep.

Two points:

1. If CT's citizens and law makers choose to reapply the assault weapons ban, that expired a few years ago, that is up to the people of CTZ to do.

2. If someon murders someone in Bulgaria, is it a Danish tragedy?
No.

3. For our "outside the US" friends, please remember that our nation is as big as most of your continent. You aren't dealing with Denmark here.

4. I do not wish to curtail freedom of the press. I do not wish to curtail equal protection under the law. I do not wish to curtail the right to bear arms. I do not like the attacks on any of our basic freedoms, see Bill of Rights, particularly as a knee jerk response to a tragedy. See Patriot Act and 9-11 as a classic example.

5. The freak who did this was known to have massive behavioral problems. From what I have read, were his mother alive today, she could be justifiably charged with criminal negligence. (Then again, he stole the guns and shot her, so she's safe from that. )

6. It has been noted that this freak tried to purchase firearms in a state where purchase rules are ALREADY STRINGENT. He failed to purchase them thanks to people apparently applying rules and judgment. (His mother, maybe not so much ...)

7. Whenever I hear "never happen again" I gag.

School security has been an issue since I was in high school, and there were some serious violent events that got school evacuated and cops called out there. Mid 70's.

The suggestions that teachers be armed has a lot of holes in it.

There are a lot of teachers who do not choose to own arms, their own free choice. I do not want any teacher to be pressured or forced to arm. I would hope a given school district considering the approach from the above link would be sensitive to that issue.

My prediction? Assault weapons ban will probably get a re look, and may be reinstated in some states. Let the voters decide in each state.

No Federal action needed.

Yet for all their deadliness no one proposes a car as a means of self defense, why is this?

That is outrageous! So much appears to rest on that ridiculous case. It beggars belief that the police can muck up and walk away like that. Surly there have been other cases where the police have been sued or complained about and paid out for negligence. Don't they show the police do have a duty of care?

To be fair, this was a series of small mistakes that compounded into a tragedy of errors. Most of the time the police are much more competent than this, but is shows pretty clearly that there are no penalties for failing miserably in there duty. It's not surprising that people feel perfectly justified in taking measures to protect themselves.

Yeah, good thinking. Then the criminals will be the only ones with guns, and will know that nobody is armed to defend themselves.....

... except that's not what happens. This is not a fantasy, this is not speculation. Australia implemented a massive gun ban/buyback. It has not resulted in gun-wielding criminals taking over. The UK did the same thing---no semiautos, no pistols over 0.22, strict licensing (as in: before the license is granted, the licensing authority inspects your gun safe). Criminals did not take over, despite "knowing that ... nobody is armed".

The idea that criminals are waiting to pounce on you, but afraid that you are going to go all John McClane on them, is a macho fantasy. Go to Australia without a gun; everyone knows you don't have a gun, and watch how you don't get shot. Go to Germany. Go to the UK. What's protecting you there? Why aren't gun-mad criminals shooting all of these juicy sitting ducks? Because that's not what happens.

"Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Maine: 0 Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.

... except that's not what happens. This is not a fantasy, this is not speculation. Australia implemented a massive gun ban/buyback. It has not resulted in gun-wielding criminals taking over. The UK did the same thing---no semiautos, no pistols over 0.22, strict licensing (as in: before the license is granted, the licensing authority inspects your gun safe). Criminals did not take over, despite "knowing that ... nobody is armed".

The idea that criminals are waiting to pounce on you, but afraid that you are going to go all John McClane on them, is a macho fantasy. Go to Australia without a gun; everyone knows you don't have a gun, and watch how you don't get shot. Go to Germany. Go to the UK. What's protecting you there? Why aren't gun-mad criminals shooting all of these juicy sitting ducks? Because that's not what happens.

And the problem with comparing the US to UK, Australia, etc. is that they're not the US.

And don't try with Australia. 22 million people willing to give up their guns is one thing. We have that many, if not much more GUNS in America.

I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we could put more money and resources into providing adequate mental health care for all of our population, instead of always focusing on the gun issue.

Nah, forget it. Requiring teachers to undergo firearms training and wear sidearms in the classroom is obviously a much better idea.

__________________“In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”—Mark Twain

John Albert, yes, and the root cause of the apparent epidemic of personality disorders might be handy to pin down ... if it can be.

__________________Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission."Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

The intent of the writers of both the DoI and the BoR is clear, and the use of the phrase "the people" in the Second is consistent with their use of the same phrase throughout the documents.

The amendment was not intended to allow states to raise militias, and the Republic to have the right to field armies, the amendment was intended to recognize the intrinisic right to self defense, and the concurrent right to resist tyranny, from whatever source.

Then perhaps you can find a single, literary, reference, anywhere in any document written before 1800 in which "to bear arms" has any meaning related to self defense.

Yeah, good thinking. Then the criminals will be the only ones with guns, and will know that nobody is armed to defend themselves.....

Not gonna happen, no matter how much people fantasize about it.

I know Triforcharity ignores me, but I want to comment on this anyway.

It is a fantasy to think there is any danger in the USA of the loss of the right to bear arms. Just as in the UK, Australia etc that right will always exist.

The real issue is how to get the guns off the criminals and nuts, not the sensible law abiding gun owners. Sadly that real issue is twisted by the likes of Triforcharity into a fantasy that it is the legal gun owners who need to lose their guns, leaving the criminals armed.

What the likes of Triforcharity needs to answer is, in the action needed to get the guns off the criminals and nuts, will he accept tighter rules and regulations across the board that will mean some greater restrictions on him and other sensible law abiding gun owners?

Gun owners in the UK, Australia etc have accepted such a system of tighter rules and regs which means there are no calls to ban all guns and their basic right is well protected and supported. Plus the problems with guns are far far lower.